In a curiosity surely born of some deeper yearning, I asked a few ambitious, heterosexual working mothers I know to send me a list of the invisible tasks they do on their "second shift," family needs that their equally ambitious, working male partners simply do not see. Within an hour and a half, I received a collection of lists that averaged around 35 items each, full of the taxing, the trivial, the short- and the long-term: sick child duty, travel planning, photo organization, holiday preparation, emotional support work, hairstyling, online searches for sports equipment, et al. Clearly, I had hit a nerve.

When I asked their husbands to comment on the lists, it was like someone had just asked them why they had refused to carry the baby. Some men wrote carefully crafted arguments about different culturally conditioned spheres of expertise and talent; some listed all of the chores they did—mostly garbage and yard work; and others were afraid to speak at all, for fear of taxing their already stressed marriages. Another nerve.

Judging from the radio silence that followed the men's responses, the women were hoping for something different. I think they wanted their partners to pick up a broom.

Only a handful of working parents have the "village" they need to care for their children during the period in which career opportunities slam up against pregnancies, births, years of nursing, and other crucial forms of caregiving. Most of us have to buy the village, and it's expensive—so expensive that almost everyone has to stop hiring once they have paid for childcare and, in the very best cases, a cleaning service, despite the fact that there is much more to do.

To completely eliminate the destruction that childrearing exacts on your mind, body, and career, you would have to hire workers to handle your finances, home repairs, pets, laundry, afterschool commitments, errands, and shopping, among other responsibilities. Add to these costs the overtime that most working parents pay to accommodate the fact that their childcare needs extend well beyond the presumed eight hours a day, and you're talking about a lot of cash. No one has this kind of money.

Because no one can afford to fully replace themselves at home while they are at the office and because, when it comes to more important tasks like selecting afterschool lessons and resolving playground disputes, no one wants to replace themselves, working mothers have famously picked up the slack for both partners, subsidizing our market with their free labor, enabling our companies and institutions to charge artificially low prices for their goods and offer artificially high salaries to their employees.

All of this means that mothers are important, in all of the ways in which socially conservative forces routinely note. But it could also mean that mothers—especially working mothers—are exploited. They are being used as a means by their partners, our institutions, and our economy in a system they did not design, to do more than their fair share of the family's work, all without compensation. No one yet has asked or empowered working mothers to reimagine and restructure their workplaces to suit their own ends. So the basic lack of self-governance and self-determination, combined with the unpaid labor, raises the specter of injustice.

Theorists have been studying and publicizing the phenomenon of invisible work since Ann Oakley's The Sociology of Housework (1974). But especially squeezed working mothers report little progress, even though most can recall the exact, pre-marital dinner conversation in which they explicitly contracted with their partners to divide the household chores equally. Why aren't we seeing more change?

Explanations

Scholars of social work, sociology, and psychology have studied the factors—like household division of labor and expressions of gratitude—that motor gender and/or sexual differences in marriage satisfaction. But there is little research aimed at understanding the reasons why the perceptions of working men and women differ when it comes to the proportion of family work they perform and, if, in fact, women's perceptions are accurate, why men have not taken up more of these tasks.

There are three plausible hypotheses we might consider:

The Epistemic Hypothesis: Perhaps men simply can't see what needs to be done. They didn't see their fathers doing these tasks; and their mothers did their invisible work quietly and without call for recognition. In this case, our male partners suffer from what philosopher Norwood Russell Hanson called "seeing-as." Without the requisite background as a trained scrap-booker, for example, men do not see a pile of old photos as a distracting project waiting to happen. It's just a pile of old photos. They live in a different reality.

In another version of this hypothesis, it's not that men have been differently acculturated. Rather, they have a different cognitive architecture. There is some very early selective attention data suggesting that distractions are costly for women. When it comes to men, however, these same "distractions" may actually serve as cues to get men to pay attention to whole categories of things they might otherwise ignore.

The Motivational Hypothesis: Perhaps men have an inkling of what, supposedly, needs to be done, but they don't believe the tasks are valuable enough to justify the time it would take to complete them: One could run to the craft store so the children can make handmade, instead of store-bought, valentines for their classmates, but this would be silly. There are more important things to do.

In another version of this hypothesis, men may be unwilling to respond to family needs because they either believe they will not respond correctly or that their partners will criticize them for not responding correctly: Why should I go to get the craft supplies, if I'll just end up getting the wrong thing? It would be a waste of both of our time for me to go. You have to put the right person on the right task.

The Structural Hypothesis: Perhaps men are attentive, knowledgeable, and willing, but their supervisors won't allow anyone to leave work at 6 p.m. to pick up their kids from daycare. In other words, it might be that men do not contribute equally because they can't. If your husband doesn't become assimilated to our workplace culture of manic ascension, determined to pursue what U.S. politicians, novelists, and landscape painters have historically cast as limitless possibility, he's fired.

The Solution

Related Story

In order to relieve working mothers and save their relationships, I don't think we need to wait for the scholarly research to mature. We don't need to think deeply about theories of justice, fairness, and what counts as injustice either. Life isn't fair. (Ask any mother who has nursed a baby.) There are certainly cases in which injustice generates extreme suffering, and these cases may call for a more philosophical response. But the exhaustion of relatively privileged mothers working in the United States is not one of those cases.

Instead, we need simply notice, first, that these women are overwhelmed, second, that they're our best friends, and, third, that there are lots of little things we can do about their suffering. To start, partners might ask working mothers to draw up a list of invisible tasks, remain attentive to the work that needs to be done, do some of it, and remember to recognize the effort and sacrifice involved in completing the remainder. Fathers, especially, might ask themselves a series of questions:

Do I do half of the laundry and half of the dishes every day?

Do I buy half of the clothes and toys?

Do I take on half of the management of my care providers?

Do I write half of the lists and notes?

Do I wake up in the middle of the night to calm the baby half of the time?

Do I change half of the diapers?

Do I plan half of the travel?

Do I track half of the household budget?

Do I put the kids to bed half of the time?

Do I make half of the grocery, sports, and afterschool lesson runs?

Do I write half of the e-mails to my kids' teachers?

Do I watch the kids for half of the weekend and for half of every weeknight?

Despite the media rhetoric, no working mother wants to do it all. She wants to do half of it all. Maternal investment is a physical, emotional, and logistical bitch. So the responsiveness of one's partner makes a difference.

In the workplace, individual supervisors should take steps to humanize their institution's policies and help their male employees respond to family needs. The supervisor who fails to see the company interest in making it possible for a male employee to give the very best care to his child is a supervisor who fails to see the ways in which all of our lives are thoroughly enmeshed, the ways in which caregiving affects everything from innovation, profit, and expansion, to drug use, crime, and truancy.

The central point of the "work-life" conversation is routinely lost. It's not a conversation about fairness, and it's not, exclusively, a conversation for and among women. This is a conversation about families and about babies and their care, which makes it a conversation about kindness, responsiveness, and our nation's collective future. You don't let a mother work from home just to make her life easier. You let a mother work from home so her child can receive the very best of care, care from a mother who will remain responsive because she has been able to fulfill her own ambitions, in addition to her child's needs.

There are more things to be done in this world than are explicitly required of us by laws and principles. So we all have a standing responsibility to remain attentive, fulfilling needs when we can, particularly when those needs are expressed by people we know and love.

SIGHs and Relief

The good news is that many men already seek out these responsibilities. I like to call their actions "small instances of gender heroism" or "SIGH"s, in honor of the intense pang of gratitude and relief a damsel-in-distress feels when a superhero notices her especially—amidst a crowd—and swoops in to enact a rescue that was so unexpected that its impossibility had become the central pillar of her fierce independence. You know, like the dreamy effect Mr. Darcy has on Elizabeth Bennet, Superman on Lois Lane, and Antonia on her line through Danielle and Therèse.

In the course of my own life as a working mother, I've been lucky enough to witness several such acts, without which I would not have maintained my sanity:

In films with pregnant main characters before and since Fargo, the pregnancy is always the story, and the pregnant character's screen life begins or ends with the birth. But Joel and Ethan Coen wrote a main character whose pregnancy was only one aspect of her interesting and socially relevant life. SIGH.

In a charged professional setting, a wildly successful, male philosopher—whom I didn't know personally—chastised his equally successful male colleague for calling on everyone else in the room before me, though my hand was raised first. "I'm not sure what's wrong with him," my defender said, loud enough for the speaker to hear. "He must have a blindspot." SIGH.

During meetings scheduled on short notice, my male and female colleagues tolerated the giggles of my young daughters, as they watched cartoons with headphones on a nearby computer. SIGH.

At a crucial turning point in my career, a senior female philosopher actively defended the non-traditional character of my research. SIGH.

Finally, long ago, my spouse asked me for my list of invisible work, which we split down the middle, and I haven't done a load of laundry in more than 20 years. SIGH.

Small acts of heroism—not treatises, theories, studies, and arguments—will motor the revolution, millions of individuals with all kinds of power paying very close attention to their friends and colleagues who are mothers and offering them helpful, creative, and locally appropriate assistance whenever possible.

Find a working mom and lead with the following SIGH: "What do you need, in order to raise your children and advance in your career at the same time?" Just swoop in and help her out, not because you're obligated to rectify an injustice, but because you can. Responding to the misery of the people you care about is what you do.

Dreamy.

Looking for a way to start this difficult conversation with your partner? Consider the categories of invisible work below. What percentage of this work do you do? What percentage of this work does your partner think you do? Record your answers and compare notes.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.